Peter, prince of the apostles, and the hierarchical structure of the Church [Archive]

Paul Cowan

19-06-2007, 05:15 AM

Dear Sean,

So you acknowledge that Peter was the prince and head of the Apostles?

I think one can say he was the spokesman for the Apostles in that he was hot tempered and fast to speak. He was the one that cut off the High priest's servants' ear that Christ had to put back on. He spoke with misunderstanding on the Mount of Transfiguration. He got out of the boat when Christ told them to go to the other side.

Yes, it was his confession of faith that the Church built on the rock was built on. Not Peter, but his confession of Faith that Christ was God, that was the rock in question.

It seems to me, myself and I paul and only paul speaking, that Peter was kinda a screw up. Forgive me Holy Apostle Peter. Compared to the other Apostles, he was out first tripping on his words and actions more so than the other Apostles. How many times was he chastised by Christ for speaking out of turn or rather intentions?

Yes, a great Apostle!! Absolutely!! They all were or they would not have been chosen. But Christ, like the Father, always chose the weakest and least to represent Him. (poor uneducated fisherman, hated and despised tax collectors, harlots, sons of a carpenter). And look what great glory they turned the world into. I think he chose his disciples pretty well. We are descendants of apostolic succession. There were 12 of them. They went all over the known world and started churchs in 5 central metropolises as well as other countries. Rome was just one of them.

St. Paul was also a great apostle and he also ended up in Rome. Though he was the 13th apostle, it seems to me that he was more on target than St. Peter. But then again, I am prejudiced to my names sake.

I know this sounds rude and possibly hard hearted, but I think it fairly accurate. I have been studying St. Peter and his role in the RC Church since I joined the EO and keep coming back to his personality. I have wondered if he was prominently spoken of in the Bible because of his "extravagent" personality while the others were less spoken of since he took the "lime light"?

Paul

Matthew Panchisin

19-06-2007, 07:07 AM

Dear Sean,

“Pope John Paul recited the Nicene Creed without the Filioque.There isn't any problem with original Nicene Creed that Orthodox Christians recite.”

So you acknowledge that Peter was the prince and head of the Apostles?

Sean a better question for you might be, do you think the Bishop Rome is the Successor of Christ as Pope John Paul thought himself to be and taught others such bizzare things, bizzare is an understatement. I mean if someone thinks that they are the Successor of Christ I really don’t think they can know what they are saying when they recite the Creed.

Here are some quotes from St. John Chrysostom which we could present to show that Saint John is the prince of all the Apostles. I can’t find the actual words ‘prince for the Apostles’ right now but you can get the general theme, besides that really doesn’t matter at all.

We could deduce the following about Saint John:

1. the pillar of all the Churches

2. the holder of the Keys

3. the earthly mouthpiece of the Almighty

4. infallible !!

5. the Rock

6. supreme pastor, not subject to anyone

“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

“Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we needs must describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters. And yet even thus it is not superfluous, but even very necessary. For when you have learned who he was, and from whence, who his parents, and what his character, and then hear his voice and all his heavenly wisdom, then you shall know right well that these (doctrines) belong not to him, but to the Divine power stirring his soul…. Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human” (St. John Chrysostom, Second Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

My good friend Father Ambrose did some research in the past and came up with this sort of stuff. I suppose how one understands the fathers and the True Church are really the issue.

"Let us move to the issue of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted the verse -
"Thou are Peter and upon this rock...."

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America's
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let's look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1...."That St. Peter is the Rock" is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2....That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3....That St. Peter's faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4....That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5....That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

"If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word "Petra" means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter."
This is an important point since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the regulation that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.)

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm "

Herman Blaydoe

19-06-2007, 02:03 PM

It might be worthwhile to look at the ENTIRE quote so that it may be seen in its proper context:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ξαρχος ) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμλιος ) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

There is no further reference in the speech to the papal prerogatives.

From New Advent The Council of Ephesus (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm)

Sean M.

19-06-2007, 02:20 PM

Dear Sean,

I read your post and am having a little difficulty understanding what you are trying to get at with your question. I cannot seem to trace in this thread what lead you into asking this question. Are you perhaps trying to imply something or are you inquiring into how the Orthodox Church views St. Peter? Or perhaps, the Bishop of Rome?

I was just giving a quote from the Council of Ephesus, in response to Hermans statement.

But then nothing from those local councils or any future council can contradict the proclamations of the seven councils, so they still are worthy of a special place in history.

It must be believed then that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles, and that the pope is his successor.

I didn't really want to get of topic from the Filioque, so maybe someone could start another thread.

Herman Blaydoe

19-06-2007, 03:58 PM

It must be believed then that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles, and that the pope is his successor.

I fear this is a complete and total misunderstanding of the council, even in a Catholic context, as my previous post reveals.

A statement by a Papal legate was "read into the record". This was not an official proclamation of the Council at large. It is NOT, therefore something that we are "required" to believe. Even then, it does NOT come close to defining exactly what "prince and head of the Apostles" means. We Orthodox, as followers of the seven councils, have obviously defined it differently than the Vatican has chosen to do.

What you are claiming is similar to simply because a senator read a statement during a session of Congress, it is automatically a Law.

It doesn't work that way.

Antonios

19-06-2007, 04:30 PM

It must be believed then that Peter was the prince and head of the apostles, and that the pope is his successor.

Dear Sean,

You are incorrect in your presumptions, and extrapolating the statement that St. Peter was 'the prince and head of the apostles' to somehow translate into the Bishop of Rome as being the 'Vicar of Christ' is the very reason for the Great Schism. Make no mistake about it.

I didn't really want to get of topic from the Filioque, so maybe someone could start another thread.

Since it is my belief, and please forgive me if I am wrong, that your intentions are not to learn about the Church's understanding regarding bishops and synods, then I find it useless to start another thread. If, however, you really are interested, please put some effort and seek the truth. If threads are what you are interested in, there are plenty in the archives which have expounded on this topic ad infinitum. If after your seeking, you still have questions, I, and I believe most people here, would be more than willing to explain things if needed.

Mina Soliman

19-06-2007, 07:53 PM

The way I understand the Pope of Rome was addressed in ancient times was not in a dogmatic sense that must be believed, but in an honorable sense that was realized. In other words, there were similar titles going around to Constantinople as well that may, if taken out of context, proves that primacy of Constantinople over the whole world.

Or take Alexandria for example. Alexandria is considered the "Evangelistic" See, after the Evangelist St. Mark. It was a See of intellect, where most influential theologians and bishops learned from, even if not Egyptian. Does that mean it is the sole Evangelical or Intellectual center of the world?

In addition, it is understood that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. There is no denying that. But St. Peter also developed a see in Antioch. Yet, although Antioch is given similar honor to Rome, it does not claim primacy over all the sees. It is implied that Rome's honor truly comes from its political status as capital of the world, not Petrine primate of the world (which argumentatively can be given to Antioch).

God bless.

Sean M.

21-06-2007, 02:25 AM

Dear Sean,

You are incorrect in your presumptions, and extrapolating the statement that St. Peter was 'the prince and head of the apostles' to somehow translate into the Bishop of Rome as being the 'Vicar of Christ' is the very reason for the Great Schism. Make no mistake about it.

There were many schism's between Constantinople and Rome. The final split between East and West was officially in 1472 with the Eastern rejection of the Council of Florence.

It seems clear to me at least, from scripture, and from the early Church fathers, that Peter held primacy amoung the apostles. That primacy is passed on to the pope, through apostolic succession.

Antonios

21-06-2007, 03:11 AM

There were many schism's between Constantinople and Rome. The final split between East and West was officially in 1472 with the Eastern rejection of the Council of Florence.

It seems clear to me at least, from scripture, and from the early Church fathers, that Peter held primacy amoung the apostles. That primacy is passed on to the pope, through apostolic succession.

Having primacy among the apostles, and self-proclaiming oneself as the unfallible King of the Church and Vicar of Christ, my friend, are not the same thing. Pride is what made Satan fall and jealousy why Cain murdered his brother.

Antonios

21-06-2007, 04:17 AM

Sean M.

21-06-2007, 04:51 AM

Dear Sean,

I would like to apologize for my last few posts addressed to you. I have acted more as an adversary than as a brother. I beg for your forgiveness and hope you find the answers you are looking for.

In Christ,
Antonios

No offence taken.

I think one of the key passages that highlights Peter's primacy, is the conferring of the keys specifically to Peter in Matthew16:19.

Matthew16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is similar to Eliacim recieving the keys in Isaiah22:22.

Isaiah22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut and no one shall open.

The significance of giving the keys, expresses that the person they are conferred upon, has supreme authority over the Church. Their decisions are binding.

Paul Cowan

21-06-2007, 06:48 AM

Dear Logos,

In some cross referrencing your scriptures, I also found references from Isaiah 22:22 to Revelation 3 and the Church of Philadelphia where Christ is also said to have have been given the key of David. So it would seem Eliakim was a prefigure of Christ. I don't know the validity of this link to Orthodoxy, but it does not have to be Orthodox to speak a fact of history.
http://www.pbc.org/library/files/html/3885.html

As far as the Matthew 16:19 verse, the initial keys may have been given to Peter, but keep in mind Christ also blew the Holy Spirit onto the other apostles after His resurrection charging them the same to loose and to bind.

So since Peter spoke with the power of the Spirit in proclaiming Christ God, this propogated his being given the keys as a matter of timing. But not exclusively as John 20:22-23 points out He also gave the authority to the other 10 apostles.

As you say yourself.

Their decisions are binding (bold mine)

So just as the early church recognized each Bishop as equals, in order to hold a meeting someone had to be first amoung equals. Not that this "first" person was "over" the others but that he could conduct a civil orderly meeting. He still had one vote as the other Bishops did.

Antonios

21-06-2007, 07:49 AM

No offence taken.

I think one of the key passages that highlights Peter's primacy, is the conferring of the keys specifically to Peter in Matthew16:19.

Matthew16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This is similar to Eliacim recieving the keys in Isaiah22:22.

Isaiah22:22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut an no one shall open.

The significance of giving the keys, expresses that the person they are conferred upon, has supreme authority over the Church. Their decisions are binding.

Dear Sean,

Thank you, my brother, for forgiving me and for your reply. I know the passages in which you are referring to, yet I still do not have the same conclusion as you. Unfortunately, this specific diversion in interpertation is what keeps us (collectively) divided. I pray sincerely for unity, though I fear it will not happen in my lifetime. But with God, everything is possible.

The Orthodox view of the Bishop of Rome, is one as 'first-among-brothers'. This is how the Early Church understood it. There was a special recognition there and a certain respect and honor for the Roman See in the early days of the Church for various reasons, including political and organizational reasons. The Roman Catholics will stress the quotes you listed above as the primary reason, but the Orthodox would disagree.

The following story is the best I can describe the Great Schicm:

There once was a family of five young orphans who were all brothers. This young group of siblings were outcasts in the world, and came to realize that without helping one another, they would all suffer and die. Being that the oldest was the strongest and the most capable in protecting them, he became their greatest advocate. For this, he was given much honor and respect by this fellow brothers. The brothers all loved and served one another, and their oldest served them well.

Their times growing up together were often filled with hardship. Most people ostracized them, and many even attacked them. These poor and tattered orphans spent much of their formative years defending themselves and supporting eachother. However, they learned that by working together, in faith and in love, they always overcame every obstacle. Through such cooperation they learned to survive and they lived in loving communion with eachother.

After many years went by, they all grew up all went there separate ways. Now, older and more mature, they moved into different areas, some fairly far away, and started their own households, always retaining the important life lessons and memories of their childhood together. It wasn't long before the brothers discovered that even in these new towns with completely new neighbors, their households were ridiculed and mocked and attacked. Again, they found themselves as outcasts and in the defensive and feared their struggles would never end!

During these various trials, there were times when one brother had to assist another brother because of fear his brother's household and even life would be taken. There even came about certain circumstances which threatened the households of all the brothers collectively, and so they all came together to discuss these dangerous enemies and work together to overcome the mounting threat, just as they did when they were children.

To their surprise, they found that even the strength of nations against them couldn't stop their love and faith in eachother. They were amazed and exhilarated as their households grew and flourished, but always close behind them, always whispering in their ears, was the demon of pride.

The oldest and strongest brother, who helped them grow into men, began to change his attitude towards his brothers. What was once loving guidance slowly became expecting commands. What was once offered as service now became an order to be obeyed. Though they loved and considered each other as one family, they each had their own respective household, with their own wife, their own children, their own trade. The oldest's sense of entitlement, however, emboldened him. He began to dictate on his own how each household should be run. He began to single-handedly change the memories and beliefs the brothers once all shared together. He made himself greater than he actually was and began acting less like a servant than a master. Less like a brother, than like a father. And so, he made himself to be their father, which he wasn't. And he made himself believe this, but the others didn't.

And, like a grimful cycle, God's greatest fell because of pride. Before this age, it was Lucifer, and the fallen angels were cast out of heaven. In the Garden, it was Adam, and he was cast out of Paradise. Then his son Cain was driven from the land, and sent east of Eden. So, likewise, the Roman Patriarchate fell into pride, and was cast from the Holy Church.

************************************************** *******

Sean, I do not mean to cause you offense or to insult your beliefs (though I totally understand if you feel insulted). What I have written is how I understand the events which led to the Schism and why our Churches are not in communion. If I am wrong, I plead for someone to correct me, so that I may be corrected. If, however, some of what I wrote is true, it is important for you to hear it so that you might understand where we Orthodox are coming from. Again, this is not an attack on your Church, but rather a defense of mine. I hope you take this post as my feeble attempt to help you. Lord have mercy on me.

John Charmley

21-06-2007, 09:23 AM

Dear Antonios, Dear Sean,

I hope it would not be presumptuous to see the workings of the Spirit in the way the discussion between you has developed and found a balance in tone - if not content.

The church of Rome certainly had a special place of honour among the earliest Christian churches. According to St Ignatius, (+110) the bishop of Antioch: "the church which presides in the territories of the Romans" was "a church worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, bearer of the Father's name." As the place where Sts. Peter and Paul were martyred for the Faith, and as the capital of the Empire, it was natural that this should be so.

Whether St. Peter was actually the first bishop of Rome is a matter of dispute, with many authorities attributing that honour to a man called Linus; not that it really matter in one sense, as the association of Rome with Sts. Peter and Paul is so strong.

I liked your analogy, Antonios. Certainly by the third century there were those bishops of Rome who used their position to claim for their See more than a Primacy of Honour; that is a process which has continued intermittently to this day. In the West, where the collapse of Roman power structures in the fifth and sixth centuries was much greater, it was natural that Rome itself, through its bishops, as the only real power centre left, would assume a real primacy. But in the East this was not so, hence, in part, the growing conflict with the ancient sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and the rivalry with the New Rome.

The Arab conquests narrowed this down effectively to a bipolar contest, as Antioch and Alexandria went into captivity; the events of 1453 effectively handed supremacy to Rome. Nor should any of us underestimate the place of Rome, especially in the west, in keeping the flame of the Faith alive. So there are many reasons to be grateful to Rome. It is hard to see any Church doing more in the world to spread the Faith, and Rome's work in the poorest places of the earth is something all Christians can learn from.

Nor should we think that Rome itself is not cognisant of the difficulties raised by the events of the first Vatican Council. Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were moved to raise the question as an essential part of their papal ministry. Pope John Paul II explicitly did so many times, and with particular strength and urgency in his "apostolic letter" on Christian ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint. Pope Benedict XVI has already repeated the question several times recently.

Fr. Thomas Hopko's article, http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/HopkoPope.php outlines how most Orthodox see this matter, and there is considerable room for dialogue. If that can come with respect, as it does with your own dialogue here, then there is hope; as there always is with the workings of the Spirit - even if He has to work through such imperfect material as the sinners whom He came to save.

In Christ,

John

M.C. Steenberg

21-06-2007, 10:36 AM

Important notice - please read carefully

Dear all,

All posts in this thread above this notice have been moved here from a different thread, to create a discussion consolidated around this theme.

Before re-inventing the wheel, those interested in carrying forward the conversation of this new thread should please familiarise themselves with the several other threads in the Community in which this topic has been discussed. These include:
St Peter, the keys, and the See of Rome (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2573) (over 108 posts)
Pre-schism popes: 'Universal rulers' of the Church? (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3363)
Succession of St Peter (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2635)Additionally, there are several other threads in the Ecclesiology and the Church area (http://www.monachos.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=4) that are relevant; and discussion on specific aspects of the theme can be located through our forum search engine (http://www.monachos.net/forum/search.php). I would encourage members to please read these materials before carrying forward a new conversation thread on this topic, so that it builds on what has already been said, rather than re-treads familiar and tired ground.

Finally, please be aware of the following: This thread should discuss the question of St Peter's position vis-a-vis the structure of the Church from an historical standpoint with contemporary perspectives, grounded in the forum's focus on 'Orthodoxy through patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical study'. It is not to be a discussion on Roman Catholicism compared with Orthodoxy, or diverging orthodoxies on questions of ecclesiastical structuring.

Many thanks,

INXC, Matthew Steenberg
Monachos.net

Sean M.

21-06-2007, 02:26 PM

As far as the Matthew 16:19 verse, the initial keys may have been given to Peter, but keep in mind Christ also blew the Holy Spirit onto the other apostles after His resurrection charging them the same to loose and to bind.

So since Peter spoke with the power of the Spirit in proclaiming Christ God, this propogated his being given the keys as a matter of timing. But not exclusively as John 20:22-23 points out He also gave the authority to the other 10 apostles.

As you say yourself.

Quotation:
Their decisions are binding

(bold mine)

So just as the early church recognized each Bishop as equals, in order to hold a meeting someone had to be first amoung equals. Not that this "first" person was "over" the others but that he could conduct a civil orderly meeting. He still had one vote as the other Bishops did.

Dear Paul, Dear Antonios

I meant that the final authority lies with the person who succeeds Peter.

The significance of giving the keys, expresses that the person they are conferred upon, has supreme authority over the Church. Their decisions are binding.

There once was a family of five young orphans who were all brothers.

I wouldn't regard, that the Pope and the Patriarchs of the Church were ever orphaned, we recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide us. Therefore I believe when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is prevented from teaching false doctrine, even if he desired too.

Antonios

21-06-2007, 04:51 PM

Dear all,

Thank you, Matthew, for moving this discussion into a new thread. If it wasn't for your diligent work in moderating, there would be one thread with 30,000 posts in it! I think we, as a community, could do a better job staying in focus to the topic of the thread, and if we feel the need to take the discussion into a different direction, we should not be scared to start a new thread. I know, I, myself, have a lot of work to do in this regard.

Also thank you, for reminding us what the role of this forum is about and for providing the links. Sean, I hope you go through them, as they would be an excellent source for you to learn from.

John, thank you for the post and for the link. I agree with everything you wrote. I do not want to give the impression that because the RC Church is not part of the Holy Church as understood by the Orthodox Church, that God has left them and there is no grace to be found in it. Even after Cain killed his brother and was cast from the land, God was with him, and through him, we all came into existence.

St. Peter's denial of Christ has been recorded in the Gospels. What is the significance of this? Why would the writers of the Gosples be sure to include such a humiliating event into the narrative? Is it because by this example, we see the power of repentance and the mercy of God? Even after the Lord told Peter that upon his faith He would be build His Church and that he would be given the keys to the kingdom, St. Peter outright denied him, not once, but three times. Even the greatest among the disciples fell and abandoned God. But God was still with him, and the tears of his repentence is what brought him back up.

Does this fall and rise of St. Peter have a prophetic character with regards to the Roman Catholic Church? Much of the Orthodox world state that the notion of papal supremecy is tantamount to a denial of Christ and that for real unity to happen, the Roman See would have to repent. Is this what will eventually happen, and if so, when will the cock crow and bring forth this great metanoia? For St. Peter, it was while Christ Himself was on trial and was being mocked and abused...

M.C. Steenberg

21-06-2007, 09:41 PM

Dear Sean, you wrote:

I meant that the final authority lies with the person who succeeds Peter.

The significance of giving the keys, expresses that the person they are conferred upon, has supreme authority over the Church. Their decisions are binding.

It seems to me fairly clear that, even if one accepts the reading of the conferral of the 'keys' in the manner you read it (and I do not, I am simply offering the hypothetical), the text does not make any claim about the relationship of this situation of St Peter's successor. It might be appealing to address the situation as a simple issue of singular authority conveyed in singular personal succession; but by and large the Church has not taken this view, and has taken a far more nuanced and expansive understanding of the relationship of divine authority to the apostolic community - an understanding explored in some length in our other threads on this matter.

INXC, Matthew

Herman Blaydoe

22-06-2007, 01:08 AM

I wouldn't regard, that the Pope and the Patriarchs of the Church were ever orphaned, we recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide us. Therefore I believe when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he is prevented from teaching false doctrine, even if he desired too [sic].

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but this is perhaps the most damning argument against the unuseful theory of "infallibility". It basically destroys the idea of FREE WILL and the Orthodox theology of synergia. God does not make us automatons, He requires our FREE assent at all times.

But as Matthew has already said, enough has probably been already said. This will be my last contribution to this very redundant thread.

John Charmley

22-06-2007, 06:16 PM

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Looking through the other threads mentioned in Matthew's post no. 17, I am not quite as sure as Herman that this one is redundant.

Reading through the various threads mentioned it seems as though we have a consensus that the Orthodox Church accepts a primacy of honour, and that had it not been for the nineteenth century papal innovations such as infallibility, the divisions would be narrower than they are. Clearly however much Roman Catholics insist on their own interpretation of certain passages from scripture and the Fathers, no one who is not already convinced by them is going to change their mind; such a dialogue not only runs counter to our terms of use here, it is literally fruitless.

However, perhaps the Catholic reading of what 'Primacy' means is not exactly what some Catholics assert? The following passage is at hand:

Petrine service is primacy in love, which means care for the fact that the Church takes her measure from the Eucharist. She becomes all the more united, the more she lives the Eucharistic dimension and the more she remains true in the Eucharist to the dimension of the tradition of faith ... the throne of the Eucharist is not a throne of lordship but rather the hard chair of one who serves

Such a definition of 'primacy' as a 'primacy in love' based on a unity at the Eucharist and a primacy of service is not, surely, something we would want to reject without discussion?

The author of these words - a chap called Joseph Ratzinger. If, from his current position, he could move towards elaborating what he meant in this sermon on 'The Chair of Peter', then it might be interesting. Certainly if Rome could bring itself to redefine (if one wants a neutral word) some of the things we think of as innovations, it would help create a better climate for discussion. It is, perhaps, worth reading it against the document Dominus Iesus which was published by the then Cardinal Ratzinger in 2000, and which may be found here http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html
Of course, we will have point of disagreement with what is written there; but, based as it is on considerable scholarship, it is something which can be engaged with.

Any way, I thought the quotation worth sharing. It comes from Images of Hope published by Ignatius press in 2006.

In Christ,

John

Theophrastus

23-06-2007, 07:52 AM

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but this is perhaps the most damning argument against the unuseful theory of "infallibility". It basically destroys the idea of FREE WILL and the Orthodox theology of synergia. God does not make us automatons, He requires our FREE assent at all times.

But as Matthew has already said, enough has probably been already said. This will be my last contribution to this very redundant thread.

I believe Sean may be referring to the idea that, if a Pope did indeed wish to proclaim heresy ex cathedra, that God would act in such a way that the Pope would be prevented from doing so.

Herman Blaydoe

23-06-2007, 01:36 PM

Ah but God does not "prevent" us or do anything that violates our own wills. I know exactly what Sean means and it is NOT an Orthodox idea. Even a Pope has free will AT ALL TIMES.

Sean M.

25-06-2007, 06:22 PM

I believe Sean may be referring to the idea that, if a Pope did indeed wish to proclaim heresy ex cathedra, that God would act in such a way that the Pope would be prevented from doing so.

That is exactly what i meant Jetavan, thank you.

Would Jesus have given Peter the power of binding and loosing if his promulgations were fallible?

This wouldn't make any sense, would God bind fallible decisions in heaven?

Ah but God does not "prevent" us or do anything that violates our own wills. I know exactly what Sean means and it is NOT an Orthodox idea. Even a Pope has free will AT ALL TIMES.

Yes the Pope has free will, but God prevents him from teaching false doctrine when he is speaking ex cathedra.

Michael C.

25-06-2007, 08:41 PM

Forgive me for this, I mean no disrespect or insult!

"Would Jesus have given Peter the power of binding and loosing if his promulgations were fallible?"

Yes. From Matthew 18:18, Jesus also gave this power to all the apostles, and also to their successors, bishops and priests. We know that not all of them (during the course of history) remained orthodox in their teaching, but True promulgations continued and still continue being promulgated! Fallible promulgations ceased to exist, they were wiped out from the Church's memory (Arianism, etc).

"This wouldn't make any sense, would God bind fallible decisions in heaven?"

Only if they were bound on earth also, via an Ecumenical Counsil.

"Yes the Pope has free will, but God prevents him from teaching false doctrine when he is speaking ex cathedra."

If that were the case, all errors by the entire Catholic Church, i.e. indulgences, the Inquisition, the immaculate conception of the Mother of God, the three Popes (Rome, Avignon, the Vatican) who existed at the same time, each proclaiming to be the vicar of Christ on earth, killing all 'heretics' in the name of God, Purgatory, liturgical innovations, etc. etc. would never have happened, or would have been 'wiped clean' by atonement.

Again forgive me if I misspoke or spoke out of turn.

Sean M.

25-06-2007, 11:57 PM

Dear cappy,

I'll try and address some of your questions as best i can, and any unaswered ones for another time.

Indulgences remain a doctrine of the Catholic Church. The practice of granting indulgences was changed during the Council of Trent so that it involved no fees or any other financial transactions, because of past abuses regarding indulgences in this way.

Indulgences or giving money as a sin offering is also in the bible.

2Maccabees12:43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand dracmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering.

Tobit12:9 For almsgiving saves from death and purges away every sin.

The inquisition is not a new concept in the bible either.

Deuteronomy13:6 If anyone secretly entices-you even if it is your brother, your father's son or your mother's son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend-saying, "Let us go worship other gods," whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of these gods of the people that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.

1Kings18:40 E-li-jah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Ba'al; do not let one of them escape." Then they seized them; and E-li-jah brought them down to the Wadi Ki'shon, and killed them there.

Kris

26-06-2007, 02:15 AM

Indulgences or giving money as a sin offering is also in the bible.

The inquisition is not a new concept in the bible either.

Certainly these things are in the Bible, but belong to the time before the Incarnation, suffering and Resurrection of our Lord.

Kieran P.

26-06-2007, 09:40 AM

Wow!

As a Catholic, reading Antonio's posts about 5 brothers, and whatever, is like reading literature from a whole nother religion. It all seems so defensive and orchestrated, stiffly resisting the claims of the Catholic - which is fair enough, by the way, that's your prerogative - but it's unseemly, to my mind, and typical of orthodox - nervous and ungenerous.

I often think of Orthodox actions against the Catholics as being like a little brother out to assert his differences from the big brother. Rarely have I read an orthodox article or book which doesn't mention Catholic saints in any other way than to "correct" them. Catholic books are so different in their attitude, much more encouraging to read.

Here's an article that maybe interesting for you.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

God bless us all - may we pray with open heart and be forgiven our divisions.

M.C. Steenberg

26-06-2007, 10:11 AM

Dear all,

A reminder that this thread is not to be used for discussion of Roman Catholic positions, or the relationships of Roman Catholic perceptions to those of Orthodoxy, but for the discussion of St Peter's role as it relates to the forum's focus on Orthodoxy through patristic, monastic, liturgical and ecclesiastical study. Inter-church discussion is not in the remit of this forum as a whole: it is worthy conversation, but not within the scope of this forum.

Please note that posts which do not follow these guidelines will be removed.

INXC, Matthew

Kosta

27-06-2007, 10:28 AM

The only thing a future ecumenical council cannot change is the dogmas or creeds pronounced in them. They can add to them or revise them but not change their meaning.

Councils can and have changed things from previous councils. The council of Constantinople in 381 a.d. revised and added additional articles to the Nicene Creed.

In fact thru the use of economia and akrivia canons from ecumenical councils can be disregarded altogether without any council nullifying them .

A perfect example is that thru ekonomia a heterodox can be recieved thru chrismation only, (the canons only allow this for those who baptise both in the Trinitarian formula and by Triple Immersion but may have a different understanding of the Trinity)

On the other side of the coin, thru akrivia, a copt can be taken in by baptism or chrismation only even though the canons do not call for it. (the canons say nestorians and non chalcedon can be recieved by a confession of faith and denunciation of previous heresies without the need of baptism or chrismation. WHY? because they have the same FORM and Same Understanding of the Trinity).

Sean M.

27-06-2007, 04:46 PM

I’d like to give another couple of points about the primacy and authority of Peter.

In Deuteronomy Moses prophesies regarding the coming of Christ.

Deuteronomy18:15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you should heed such a prophet.

When Moses died God choose Joshua to succeed him.

Joshua1:5 No one will be able to stand against you all the days of your life. As I was with Moses, so I will be with you; I will not fail you or forsake you.

Isn’t this passage similar to what Jesus declares to Peter in Matthew16:18.

Matthew16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Also similar to Peter and Joshua was that their names were changed, Jesus changed Simons name to Ce’phas (The rock), Moses changed Hosea’s name to Joshua (Meaning God saves)

John1:42 He brought Simon to Jesus who looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You are to be called Ce’phas” (which is translated Peter)

Numbers13:16 These were the names of the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land. And Moses changed the name of Ho-she’a son of Nun to Joshua.

Also similar is that Moses chooses twelve spies, just as Jesus chooses twelve disciples. God chose Joshua to succeed Moses, as Jesus chooses Peter to succeed him.

When Joshua died, God immediately chooses Judah to lead Israel in war.

Judges1:1 After the death of Joshua, the Israelites inquired of the Lord, “Who shall go up first for us against the Canaan-ites, to fight against them?” The Lord said, “Judah shall go up. I hereby give the land into his hand.”

The first Judge to be raised up by the Lord to judge Israel was Oth-ni-el who was from the tribe of Judah.

My point in mentioning all this is that there was always only one Judge who decided every important matter concerning the law.

Exodus18:22 Let them sit as judges for the people at all times; let them bring every important case to you, but decide every minor case themselves.

Moses made the final decision regarding important cases, his judgment was binding, not the other judges.

Sounds a lot like Church Councils doesn’t it, were only one person promulgates important matters. The rest are there to assist the chosen leader, they are bound to obey what he teaches.

Just to clarify that point further.

Matthew23:2 “The scribes and the Phar’i-sees sit on Moses’ seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach.

Judges4:4 At that time Deb’or-ah, a prophetess, wife of Lap’pi-doth was judging Israel. She used to sit under the palm of Deb’or-ah between Ra’mah and Beth’el in the hill country of E’phra-im; and the Israelites came up to her for judgment.

Andrew

27-06-2007, 10:53 PM

Paul Cowan

28-06-2007, 05:44 AM

Dear Sean,

Please re-read Matthew's #17 post in this thread. If after researching his suggested links you still have questions from a Chalcedonian Orthodox perspective and not just an argumentative RC position, please return and post again.

Here is a snippett from one of the threads Matthew recommended.

N.148 16:18a "On this rock" (taute te petra) -- feminine demonstrative pronown and article--does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter.

Blessed Theophylact: "The Lord is saying, 'This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe,'" [P.G.123:85B (col. 320).]

Saint Chrysostom: "'Upon this rock I will build.': that is, on the faith of the confession. [Hom. 54, P.G.58:518 (col. 534).]

Forgive me if this sounds kurt. But since this topic has been discussed ad nauseum in other areas, it is not productive to do so again. Nor will you, I dare say, find anyone here that supports your position. So to press it is also fruitless.

Kieran P.

28-06-2007, 08:38 AM

Hi Andrew,

Where is there spiritual benefit in papal primacy? How does the papal primacy aid in the transfiguration and deification of man within Christ?

Now, this question could equally be asked of any bishop, and could certainly be asked of the Caesaro-papist past of the Orthodox Church. We've had a consistency of leadership through the Papacy, and a strong voice against heresy.

I've just finished reading the Papal encyclicals (abridged) from St Peter to John XXIII and they're a delight of spiritual wisdom, practical guidance and strong leadership against persistently encroaching secular monarchs, princes and revolutionary politicians.

Even if Orthodox position was correct - and the Pope is First Among Equals - then they've been in an anamolous position for over a thousand years, being seperated from their 'First', yet still claiming to be the true church. Obviously they base their idea of First Among Equals on both Church Tradition and Scripture, yet they're sundered from this leader.

God bless us all...

Peter Farrington

28-06-2007, 08:50 AM

I think that the view of most of the Churches is that the position of the Pope of Rome was economic not essential.

If there are a variety of Churches in the Empire then the Imperial capital was naturally the senior Church.

But the Empire has long gone, and there were and are many other Churches outside the Empire who did not find that the internal Imperial structure of the Church organisation was particularly relevant.

Many Orthodox believe that a certain primacy is natural to the life of the Church, but that it does not adhere to a particular geography, and that since Rome is no longer Orthodox it is no longer first in honour in any sense. For the Eastern Orthodox this has tended to pass to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but even here it is not clear what primacy if afforded him, indeed a quick scan of the internet will show very mixed views towards him from Eastern Orthodox who might be expected to afford him some primacy of honour.

In the Oriental Orthodox communion the primacy of honour has tended to fall to the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate. Of the Middle Eastern Orthodox Churches this remained largest and most coherent in the period after the middle of the 6th century. This primacy is manifested in who chairs meetings of the Churches and never in any sort of theological and ecclesial jurisdiction, and is closer to the primacy which might have been afforded to the Pope of Rome in the past.

So I guess I am saying that many Orthodox do not believe that there is something missing from the structure of the Church because the primacy of Rome has ended. This primacy, they and I would say, is accidental not essential.

Best wishes

Peter

Sean M.

28-06-2007, 04:31 PM

Arguments for papal primacy all seem to come from man's fallen faculty of reason. Where is there spiritual benefit in papal primacy? How does the papal primacy aid in the transfiguration and deification of man within Christ? It might "make sense" for some from a bureaucratic, legalistic way of thinking, but all that will pass away; where is the real meat, so to speak, in this? How does it contribute towards theosis? Everything in the Orthodox Church (traditionally) is aimed at healing man's fallen nature back towards Christ, going from glory to glory in the Life of the Trinity. To us Orthodox, we gain absolutely nothing spiritually from some erroneous Franco-Latin formulation about papal primacy.

The spiritual benefit is that we know with all certainty that anything the Pope promulgates from the chair of Peter is infallible. If we abide in those teachings we will ultimitely grow closer to God. It also encourages the unity among all christians, as Jesus prayed for in John17.

John17:11 And now I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them in your name that you have given me, so that they may be one, as we are one.

1Corinthians1:10 Now I appeal to you brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you be in agreement and that there be no division among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same purpose.

This is apposed to a group of autonomous Churches, where each bishop makes decisions regarding his particular jurisdiction.

Andrew

28-06-2007, 05:20 PM

This is apposed to a group of autonomous Churches, where each bishop makes decisions regarding his particular jurisdiction.

They are autonomous in the sense that my right arm is autonomous from my left. They share in the same Body. They have the same heart pumping blood to them. They are of one mind and heart... there is no need for an earthly central authority, because our central authority is Christ seen in Uncreated Light, in communion of the Eucharist, in the life of the traditional ascetical-sacramental Orthodox way of life. Our central authority is the Eucharist. So, we have a Bishop who presides over the Divine Liturgy, and in turn priests and deacons. We have no need for a pope, because we already have an infallible uncreated Central Authority. And this is why we don't go about demolishing our Liturgy, our ascetical life, our theology, like what has gone on under various Popes in the Catholic Church.

The papal system is an earthly, legalistic, Franco-Latin judiciary system... it is based on a very limited sense of truth. "When the pope speaks from the Chair, what he says is infallible!" That means very little. Propositional statements are not Truth, or infallibility. Propositional statements are an icon that lead to the Truth, which is participation in Christ, who is Truth. The "traditional" Franco-Latin propositions on dogma and whatnot seem to stem from a scholastic form of reasoning that is divorced from true Knowledge. Why should I listen to the Pope? Has he seen God? Has he been purified of his passions, illumined by the Holy Spirit to see things as they actually are, and does he partake of the Holy Trinity? If he doesn't, then his words about God are lifeless. They are born from his fallen reason. His statements, even if they're from a throne, are erroneous. In the Church, we do not base our theology on our own reason. If we have not seen God as true Theologians, then we repeat and honor what those who have say.

From this fallen reasoning faculty there comes a host of other problems... the Franco-Latin view of the Ecumenical Councils is wrong, along with the Latinized understanding of them that was at some points argued for in the Orthodox Church. Ecumenical Councils are not "infallible" because they are an Ecumenical Council. The infallibility of a council is not because of the council, but because of the revelation of Divine Glory given to those who expound the truth. Or more specifically, the council is Ecumenical because the participants are godmen. Infallibility is seen in Christ, and those who live Christ. We value the Ecumenical Councils, the Scriptures, and such things because they are the words of holy men who are trying to point us towards their own experience, that of unceasing ontological communion of Love with the Holy Trinity. On the other hand, Franco-Latin thinking honors these men because they were a part of an "infallible" council.

I don't mean to be harsh. Please forgive me.

Sean M.

28-06-2007, 05:50 PM

Dear Sean,

Please re-read Matthew's #17 post in this thread. If after researching his suggested links you still have questions from a Chalcedonian Orthodox perspective and not just an argumentative RC position, please return and post again.

Here is a snippett from one of the threads Matthew recommended.

I read some of it, i'm familiar with the arguments presented in them.

First of all, if Christ meant that the faith Peter professed in him was the rock that his Church would be built upon, then this means that anyone who has ever professed faith in Christ cannot fall away, because Jesus states.

Matthew16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

This seems to be similar to the protestant view of once saved always saved.

Does the faith we profess in Christ prevail against the gates of Hades?

Matthew7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord,Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven.

Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas(Which is the English translation of the Aramaic word Kepas) Kepas in Aramaic means rock.

Aramaic was the language all the Jews spoke in Palestine at that time.

Kepha in Aramaic means rock. When the word was translated into Greek, you get the word Petra. The word Petra had to be changed to Petros(The masculine noun) when describing Peter because it was a Feminine noun.

Andrew

28-06-2007, 06:16 PM

I read some of it, i'm familiar with the arguments presented in them.

First of all, if Christ meant that the faith Peter professed in him was the rock that his Church would be built upon, then this means that anyone who has ever professed faith in Christ cannot fall away, because Jesus states.

Matthew16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

This seems to be similar to the protestant view of once saved always saved.

Does the faith we profess in Christ prevail against the gates of Hades?

Matthew7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord,Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my father in heaven.

Jesus gave Simon the name Cephas(Which is the English translation of the Aramaic word Kepas) Kepas in Aramaic means rock.

Aramaic was the language all the Jews spoke in Palestine at that time.

Kepha in Aramaic means rock. When the word was translated into Greek, you get the word Petra. The word Petra had to be changed to Petros(The masculine noun) when describing Peter because it was a Feminine noun.

When Our Lord said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, that is not a defensive statement. We as the Church are not on the defensive side. No, we are on the offensive. We are storming the Gates of Hell and freeing the hostages, as Christ did when he made a mockery of death, hades, and the devil with His descent to Hell and ascension to the Right Hand of the Father. You are misinterpreting Scripture.

I don't think you are here to discuss Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. I think you are here to quote prooftexts for your own agenda.

Sean M.

28-06-2007, 10:48 PM

When Our Lord said that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, that is not a defensive statement. We as the Church are not on the defensive side. No, we are on the offensive. We are storming the Gates of Hell and freeing the hostages, as Christ did when he made a mockery of death, hades, and the devil with His descent to Hell and ascension to the Right Hand of the Father. You are misinterpreting Scripture.

I don't think you are here to discuss Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. I think you are here to quote prooftexts for your own agenda.

Define what you mean by Church? Do you think jesus was referring to a spiritual body of believers, or a visible Church that he established?

John17:12 While I was with them, I protected them in your name that you have given me. I guarded them, and not one of them was lost except the one destined to be lost, so that the scripture might be fulfilled.

John7:15 I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but i ask you to protect them from the evil one.

Luke22:31 "Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you when once you have turned back strengthen your brothers."

1Peter4:7 Discipline yourselves, keep alert. Like a roaring lion your adversary the devil prowls around looking for someone to devour.

Mary

29-06-2007, 03:47 AM

Sean, I am impressed by your great knowledge! Thank you for coming here to enlighten us. =)

We just got back from church. Tomorrow is the feast day for the Apostles Peter and Paul. Here are some of the hymns that have been written in honor of them. I'm not sure which of these we sang in church today, there's so many of them! I found these on the OCA website: http://oca.org/MSWord/Music/06.June/2007-0629-texts.doc

(by Germanos)
Peter, leader of the glorious Apostles and rock of the faith,
and Paul, divinely inspired orator and light of the holy Churches:
as you stand before the throne of God,//
intercede with Christ on our behalf.

Paul, the spokesman of Christ and founder of His teachings,
who earlier had persecuted Jesus the Savior,
now you fill the first throne of the Apostles, O blessed one.
Thus you saw things that cannot be spoken,
and ascending to the third heaven you cried://
“Come with me, and be filled with good things!”

(by Byzantios)

O Apostles, praised throughout the world,
the Wisdom of God, the Word of the Father,
foretold in His Gospel that you would be His fruitful vines.
You carried in your branches the sweet-tasting fruit of life.
We faithful partake and are filled with gladness.
O Peter, the rock of faith, and Paul, the pride of all the earth,//
strengthen the flock established by your teachings!

Let us praise Peter and Paul, the two great stars of the Church.
They shine brighter than the sun in the sky of faith.
Let the nations follow the rays of their preaching,
and be led from ignorance to the knowledge of God!
One was nailed to the Cross
and received the keys of the Kingdom from Christ in heaven.
The other, beheaded by the sword, departed to the Savior,
and is worthily counted blessed.
Together they proclaim to Israel:
“He Who was stretched out on the Cross is the Lord of all!”
By their prayers, O Christ our God,
strengthen the Orthodox Faith and destroy our enemies,//
as you are the Lover of mankind!

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit;

Well, there's tons more, but whoever's interested can read it on the site.

And for what it's worth - I can't picture the Apostle Peter fighting for primacy and honor for himself. Nor can I picture him asking his disciples to make sure he is honored above all other apostles. The Apostle Paul didn't.

What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? 1 Cor 1:12-13

In CHRIST (not Peter, or Paul)
Mary.

Andrew

29-06-2007, 05:19 AM

Define what you mean by Church? Do you think jesus was referring to a spiritual body of believers, or a visible Church that he established?

I think that's a false dichotomy, and both options don't measure up to what and who the Body of Christ is. The Body of Christ is the flesh and blood of the Resurrected Godman. It is not an earthly organization, nor is it an idea. It is flesh and blood. It is Life. It is Christ.

If a pope is so essential to the life of the Church, then why has the liturgy, church architecture, asceticism, and theology all declined over the years within Roman Catholicism? Without having a pope, we have preserved our own spiritual riches in a much more coherent sense than in Roman Catholicism. People still fast. People still go to Confession. Monasticism is thriving. Churches are being built. More and more men are coming forth as priests. We have thousands of saints coming forth, generation after generation. If having an infallible pope couldn't preserve the ascetical life, the liturgy, and sacred art, then what is the point in having a pope? He may seem to speak infallibly from a throne, but his court is falling into major disrepair.

Paul Cowan

29-06-2007, 06:17 AM

This will be my last post for this thread. Not a threat, not a warning, just a statement.

I read some of it, i'm familiar with the arguments presented in them.

You really should read ALL of it to get a fuller understanding of what the EO believe rather than just being familiar. I am familiar with calculus. I do NOT understand it. I am familiar with DNA sequencing, I do NOT understand it.

Tonight for Vesperal Liturgy, we celebrated the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul. If I did not know better, I would say my priest was a lurker on Monachos since the scripture was exactly this thread he spoke exactly on this topic.

I will not re-write his homily, but suffice it to say; He pointedly said the declaration of Faith spoken by Peter was the Rock He would build His church on. The keys were given to His church to loose and to bind. He says "my church", not churchs or your church or The church. The gates of hell will not prevail against His church. How embarassed Peter would be to know a whole faith was focused on Him rather than on his teaching of Christ.

You should know by your limited research of orthodoxy that we do NOT believe in once saved always saved. We are constantly being saved. St Paul in his letter to the Corinthians talks about this at great length. Salvation is always in a future verb tense. It is something to be looked towards achieving.

Christ rarely ever spoke to a single individual. He spoke to a person with the intention of speaking to many many more. He gave the keys to the Church, not to Peter, he told the disciples and us to not listen to the leaven of the Pharisees. He told the adultress woman her sins were forgiven as he told us to cast the first stone. (as if we could)

Without Tradition of the church and the Faith of the Holy fathers to keep it pure, we denegrate to schisms and false beliefs and perversions of Christ's Church. 20th century man doesn't know squat, 16th century man doesn't know squat, 4th century man doesn't know squat. BUT the collective knowledge of the collective Church over the course of 2000 years has preserved the very Church He Himself created. There were 12 apostles. There was not 1 apostle and 11 sub apostles. They each had equal authority given them by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

John20:22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.

Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,... (bold mine in both quotes)

The Orthodox Church tracks her lineage through apostolic succession. All 12 apostles! Not just one. If the EP and Pope are truly going to re-unite the Eastern and Western Orthodox churchs, they have alot of work ahead of them. God willing, it will happen before He returns.

Paul

Olga

29-06-2007, 07:18 AM

There were 12 apostles. There was not 1 apostle and 11 sub apostles. They each had equal authority given them by Christ and the Holy Spirit.

The Orthodox Church tracks her lineage through apostolic succession. All 12 apostles! Not just one. If the EP and Pope are truly going to re-unite the Eastern and Western Orthodox churchs, they have alot of work ahead of them. God willing, it will happen before He returns.

Paul

Brilliant in its simplicity, Paul! Nuff said!

Nina

29-06-2007, 07:32 AM

Dear Sean,

In addition to the wonderful things said above from friends, I would like to answer to your question about Church with these words of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlahos:

"According to the Holy Fathers the Church existed also before Christ's incarnation, since the creation of the angels and man is the beginning of the Church." p.319 The Feasts of the Lord

The Metropolitan continues to explain through the words of the Fathers of the Church that Christ's Incarnation resulted in the Church receiving a Head (Christ) and the Church became the Body of Christ. Also it is mentioned that Christians are members of the Body of Christ.

However I have some questions for you:

If only one Apostle had primacy as you claim, why did all of the Apostles receive the Holy Spirit on the day of the Pentecost and equally became the members of the Body of Christ? Why didn't only Saint Peter receive it?

Also let's accept your hypothesis as true. How is it possible that there was not a pope, same as the ones after the Schism, immediately succeeding Apostle Peter? How is it possible that for many centuries AD, Rome was in communion - do you consider that part of history a mistake?

We worship only our Christ. We do not worship people, and let alone a single one as a representative of Christ.

May Apostle Peter intercede for you and all who believe and say such things about him, so you by the mercy of God may recognize, see and accept the Truth. The humility of Saints is endless, that is why they are Saints. I believe, in his great humility, Saint Peter is not so pleased to hear such things being told about him.

Kieran P.

29-06-2007, 08:22 AM

Hi peeps,

Just to clarify, the Pope doesn't "fight for primacy and honour for himself." Popes are like Patriarchs, they do what they feel is best for the Church in general and act by their holy beliefs. It ain't a power trip!

And of course an Orthodox priest is going to interpret Matthew 16 in the light of his own tradition. He's hardly gonna tell you all that you're wrong, is he?

And as such, what he said was true, but also slightly slanted. You know how Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18, and I would also urge that you read the link I provided earlier to show how the primacy of St Peter is God's will and therefore should be yours, too.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

It isn't a primacy based upon tyranny - it's a primacy that restores the church to order and would help Orthodox Churches in their historic struggles against caesaro-papism and the oh-too-strong influence of the state. The Pope acts in a collegial manner; it isn't like the church becomes a club of one.

I think it's been interesting discussing this, and I hope that nobody was offended by the tone of the topic, but this HUGE and important issue has to be addressed if we are to consider Church unity in a realistic fashion.

Another solution is 'The Ratzinger Formula', whereby we tentatively make steps forward and the Eastern Churches accept the Pope as First among Equals, as this was understood pre-schism.

God bless us all - have a nice weekend.

M.C. Steenberg

29-06-2007, 10:05 AM

Dear all,

Another reminder that this thread, and this forum as a whole, is not to be used for discussion of Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which is well outside the scope of this forum.

Posts which do focus on such matters are against the forum's terms of use, and posters will incur infraction points for them.

Please help keep the forum on topic.

INXC, Matthew
Monachos.net

John Charmley

29-06-2007, 11:36 AM

Dear Matthew,

Many thanks for the timely reminder.

Much as one admires the sincerity with which our Roman Catholic friends here, and elsewhere, tell us what they do about the Pope, and much as they help clarify what is really meant by Papal supremacy, the Orthodox Church, which rejected earlier versions of them, is hardly likely to adopt them at this stage in the proceedings.

We are happy to accept a primacy of honour, and some of us happy to acknowledge with gratitude the work done by the Church of Rome in parts of the world where no one else bears witness to the Risen Lord. But where the first is called to be the last, and the last is called to be first, one is reminded how much damage has been done by ecclesiastics aping the mores of secular rulers. 'Prince of the Apostles' - I prefer that other title, servant of the servants of God. More of that - and less of the princely stuff, and who knows but that, in the long ages to come, which are but a twinkling in the eye of God, mankind might find its way to where it is called - by the Prince of Peace.

In Christ,

John

Sean M.

29-06-2007, 04:13 PM

Dear Paul,

I am familiar with the arguments that were presented. I have a good understanding of the matters i commented on.

You really should read ALL of it to get a fuller understanding of what the EO believe rather than just being familiar. I am familiar with calculus. I do NOT understand it. I am familiar with DNA sequencing, I do NOT understand it.

How embarassed Peter would be to know a whole faith was focused on Him rather than on his teaching of Christ.

It wasn't Peter who bestowed the honour of leading the Church on himself, it was God who chose Peter.

Acts15:7 After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers.

Much like a Prime Minister or President who ratifies a new law after convening and consulting his ministers. Without the signature/promulgation from the President new laws cannot be ratified, and therefore are non binding and aren't to be adhered too.

You should know by your limited research of orthodoxy that we do NOT believe in once saved always saved.

I know that is not what the Orthodox Church believes, it was an answer in response to Andrew's post.

Antonios

30-06-2007, 06:26 AM

Dear Sean,

I am begining to get the notion that you are a Roman Catholic? ;)

I think there are two different discussion taking place at this point of the thread. One regarding the role of St. Peter in the early Church, and one regarding the Pope as Vicar of Christ. You have been trained to believe that the two are the same. The Orthodox Church would disagree. And if you believe this is 'nervous and ungenerous', something 'typical of orthodox' (as someone else stated on this thread), then you would obviously know next to nothing about the Orthodox Church. A church which the Roman Catholic Church refers to as "The Second Lung".

You see, the lungs would be easier than saying the brain, because the lung is easily broken down into a duplet, whereas saying the Church is the brain would seem a bit arrogant.

In the Orthodox Church, Jesus is the Head, and the Church, His Body. And the Body cannot be divided into two lungs. It is One Body. And a Body that is marked with nails and lashes.

I appreciate your zeal and your steadfast beliefs. It makes you a person who is devout, and this is what God wants of us... to be devout in our love and devotion to Him. I tell you something in truth, that you will find the extremes of such love and devotion to God in His most persecuted Churches. This is where the gold is refined in the furnace of suffering and martyrdoms. This is where the pearl is formed in the constant layering of trials and tribulations. The Church has seen Her share of amputations and cautery. She has had Her share of pain. But this is how it will be until after the General Ressurection when the Judgment is announced. The pangs are already here. The delivery is imminent.

May St. Peter, who was crossed upside down out of humility to the Lord, pray for our souls.

Kieran P.

30-06-2007, 10:17 AM

Hi Antonios,

God bless you and keep you well in your faith! It was me who felt that the Orthodox approach is traditionally 'nervous and ungenerous' and please forgive me if you took this to be a personal remark directed at you. It wasn't. It was based upon my experience of reading Orthodox literature as it relates to the Catholic Church.

Unfortunately, I've recieved a warning that my posts somehow overstepped the mark. I understand, that this forum is to discuss the Orthodox faith within certain perimetres. I had made the mistake of believing that I was within parametres, given that this topic is of importance to the Church as one Body of Christ.

So unfortunately, I'm restricted in my reply.

In the Orthodox Church, Jesus is the Head, and the Church, His Body. And the Body cannot be divided into two lungs. It is One Body. And a Body that is marked with nails and lashes.

The Body isn't divided into two lungs - the body has two lungs. The Pope's remark was to show how he appreciated eastern Christianity and its historical role of breathing the truth into its faithful members.

We both agree that the Body is mrked with nails and lashes. Both you and I have caused this. And our differences only cause more suffering. I'm sure that - along with me - you would repeat Our Saviour's prayer that someday we will all be One, as He is One with His Father in Heaven.

You have been trained to believe that the two are the same.

We have not been trained, as such, to believe they are the same - history and scripture tells us they are the same. In scripture we see Matthias elected as the successor to Judas. You accept this without a qualm. WE accept that St Peter also has an elected successor.

God bless us all and keep us well!

John Charmley

30-06-2007, 10:50 AM

Dear Kieran,

Can I thank you for a post which was in tone and content much appreciated?

It is sometimes difficult for those of us outside Eastern Orthodoxy to see quite where its perimeters are, and I am sure we all appreciate the task we sometimes set the moderators, who can hardly be expected to know how we will read what for them seems plain enough, but for us seems a little cloudy.

It seems clear that we shall have to agree not to be in agreement on those matters relating to Papal Supremacy and Infallibility; the former can be read by Orthodox as relating to honour, and might be conceded in other circumstances if it were not for the baggage that would now come with it; the second is seen as an innovation for which there is no warrant in our reading of Tradition; and of course, since for both of us the idea that there could be any 'reading' other than the one we are taught, is deeply problematic.

This is not least because it raises the question that for you is answered by the position of your Pope, namely the question of authority. Orthodox answers on this one tend to be based upon best principles, and the practice, as one might expect from such a bunch of sinners as mankind, is often less than it should be; the Church, which is directed by the Holy Spirit guides us in the right way; but how often do individuals and groups within the Church dispute that until they find themselves outside of it - or say that the other lot are outside of it? Far too frequently, I suspect.

I am sure someone will remind me who said in response to a question that 'I belong to no organised religion, I am Orthodox' or words to that effect.

Thus far, for obvious reasons, this thread has tended to concentrate upon the first, rather than the second clause of its title; but the question of the structure of the Church, as it relates to authority, is, in practice, more problematic than one might sometimes think - which is one of the reasons the West evolved the theory and then the practice of Papal supremacy. But those who have rejected that way through, still have to practice the careful balancing of factors so familiar to the early Church. Always the clear deposit of the Faith must be preserved; but its implementation among mankind with its weakened and marred nature, is what one might expect.

In Christ,

John

Kieran P.

30-06-2007, 11:04 AM

Hiya John,

Nice post. :)

Of course, Papal authority doesn't manifest itself in the way that most people suspect it does. For instance, in the two occasions where the Pope has exercised his Papal infallibility, it was only to confirm existing doctrines and only after much consultation with the bishops and the faithful at large.

He didn't wake up and act upon a whim over his cornflakes! ;)

So it's a far more collegial authority than it's reputed to be and it doesn't subject the members of the Church to one man's criteria. That would wrong, since we are each members of the same Church and as such are afforded the same dignity.

I think that a traditional difficulty is that the east has developed upon Greek subjective lines (for simplicities sake) and the west has always been more Latin and legalistic. Both sides would balk at the others approach and therefore have found much more reason to remain seperate than to see the truth that resides in both and come together.

For us to come together wouldn't mean we have great theological differences and sacramental approaches to overcome - it would mean we have our own pride to overcome.

A solution to this problem of authority was suggested by Cardinal ratzinger (as was) and became known as The Ratzinger Formula, whereby the Eastern Churches could accept the Papacy under pre-Schism conditions and the two churches could then develop in closer harmony to evolve a more united Church. A union of sorts. A beginning - and a beginning is necessary, imho.

God bless - and thanks again.

Sean M.

03-07-2007, 10:20 PM

Sean, I am impressed by your great knowledge! Thank you for coming here to enlighten us. =)

Thank you for your kind words Mary, I am also here to be enlightened.

You see, the lungs would be easier than saying the brain, because the lung is easily broken down into a duplet, whereas saying the Church is the brain would seem a bit arrogant.

In the Orthodox Church, Jesus is the Head, and the Church, His Body. And the Body cannot be divided into two lungs. It is One Body. And a Body that is marked with nails and lashes.

Do you believe that the Church is made up of two components human and devine, visible and spiritual?

John10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John10:16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Jesus states that there will be one flock and one shepherd, then Jesus commands Peter before he ascended into heaven to, "Feed my lambs." "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep."

John21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Antonios

03-07-2007, 11:07 PM

John10:11 "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

John10:16 I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.

Jesus states that there will be one flock and one shepherd, then Jesus commands Peter before he ascended into heaven to, "Feed my lambs." "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep."

John21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Dear Sean,

My interpertation of your post is that you believe St. Peter is the shepard. This is your first and greatest mistake, and the root of schism between our two Churches. It is a denial of the true shepard, the one shepard, that is Jesus Christ, Whom you yourself quoted above as saying "I am the Good Shepard." (John 10:11) You have convinced yourself with the notion of Papal supremecy. The Orthodox have never been convinced. So use whichever quotes you'd like to try to justify your beliefs, but it will not shake the convictions of the Orthodox. Not in the early church, not in the middle ages, not now, not ever. I'm sorry, but your approach to unity has failed, is failing, and will fail if you allow arrogance and pride to blind you. My prayers are with you. May God have mercy on our souls.

Sean M.

04-07-2007, 12:06 AM

Dear Sean,

My interpertation of your post is that you believe St. Peter is the shepard. This is your first and greatest mistake, and the root of schism between our two Churches. It is a denial of the true shepard, the one shepard, that is Jesus Christ, Whom you yourself quoted above as saying "I am the Good Shepard." (John 10:11) You have convinced yourself with the notion of Papal supremecy. The Orthodox have never been convinced. So use whichever quotes you'd like to try to justify your beliefs, but it will not shake the convictions of the Orthodox. Not in the early church, not in the middle ages, not now, not ever. I'm sorry, but your approach to unity has failed, is failing, and will fail if you allow arrogance and pride to blind you. My prayers are with you. May God have mercy on our souls.

Dear Antonios,

You have misinterpreted the point i was trying to make, i know that Jesus is the shepherd, my point was that Jesus many times in the gospels uses the metaphor of, "sheep," for those who follow him. My point simply was is that he specifically asked Peter to, "Feed my lambs." "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep." Jesus was asking Peter to be the guardian over his flock.

Matthew18:12 What do you think? If a shepherd has one hundred sheep, and one of them has gone astray, does he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go in search of the one that went astray?

Matthew25:32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd seperates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep at his right and the goats at the left.

John10:26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand.

Jerry Peach

04-07-2007, 12:35 AM

With much charity and Brotherly Love, I wish to say the intended foundation of the church (visible and heirarchical) was what I call the apostolic episcopate in which Peter was first among apostolic equals, upon whose faith, including the faith of all the apostles, the church was built. This was the understanding of the whole church for centuries; a consensus of equals.
One must look particularly to St. Gregory the Great's (that's Pope Gregory) categorical denial of the ecumenial title of honor given to him by the Council even characterizing it as a "pre-cursor of the anti-Christ". Only later did the Roman Bishops begin to agrandize themselves of monarchical trappings, beginning in the ninth century Pope Nicholas for one, who used the newly discovered "False Decretals" as basis for these presumptions. Centuries Later these later were found to be fabrications.

In addition it was understood that the Three Fold admonition to feed his sheep was meant to restore Peter to communion after his Three Fold denial.

There are few that wish unity among the Churches East and West more than I but recognition of the "development" of Papal Monarchy is essential to this unity. I say step down "Holy Father" embrace your apostolic brothers and bring unity back to the Church.

Antonios

04-07-2007, 02:13 AM

My point simply was is that he specifically asked Peter to, "Feed my lambs." "Tend my sheep," and "Feed my sheep." Jesus was asking Peter to be the guardian over his flock.

Dear Sean,

I fear this conversation can go on and on, for at least 1000 years, as it unfortunately already has. You are taking a quote of Jesus and extrapolating it to justify Papal supremecy. My friend, you are adding meaning where there is not as a form of self-service. Jesus did not ask St. Peter to be the lone guardian of His flock. Asking him to 'feed his lambs and tend his sheep' does not translate to 'unilaterally make decisions and demands' upon the fellow disciples. He asked St. Peter to be a guardian over his flock, just as He commissioned all of the Apostles to go and baptize and make disciples of all nations.

Sean, I am not arguing about the important role of St. Peter in the early Church. He was considered first, but among equals. This is a very difficult notion to understand when you've been brought up in the Catholic Church and have been trained to blindly follow a 'Vicar of Christ' which has infallable authority over God's Church. Just writing this makes me cringe. I highly doubt St. Peter would have consider himself greater than anyone else, let alone his fellow suffering Apostles-in-Christ. The Gospels clearly demonstrate how he himself had stumbled, both before the Crucifixtion, and after, when St. Paul rebuked him. Learn from these events of the Gospels. They may have more meaning than you or I think.

To say that somehow a successor of the Bishop of Rome has the authority to enforce unilateral decisions, change doctrine, and expect submission of the rest of the God-fearing Christian world is tantamount to blasphemy! Learn this and understand this, and perhaps you may understand why Christ's most persecuted Church (the Orthodox Church) has persevered through centuries of attacks, including attacks by the Pope and his armies. Those who exalt themselves shall be humbled, and the humble shall be exalted. Glory to God for all things!

Kieran P.

04-07-2007, 10:19 AM

Ai ai ai! Antonio, you should perhaps calm down!

You're throwing words into Seans mouth and displaying an absolute ignorance of Catholic beliefs which borders on prejudice. You accept an elected successor to Judas, as scripture shows us in the Acts, yet you denigrate the successor to St Peter. This isn't what this forum - or discussion - is about.

Catholics don't "blindly follow" the Pope.

Pope Benedict doesn't think of himself as "greater than anyone else".

To say that somehow a successor of the Bishop of Rome has the authority to enforce unilateral decisions, change doctrine, and expect submission of the rest of the God-fearing Christian world is tantamount to blasphemy!

This is prejudicial nonsense. You ought to be worried if this is the level of your love for Catholics and the Church, I would recommend a crash course in Catholic beliefs! I say this partly in gentle humour, but partly also because I think that hardness of heart causes us not to listen.

The Catholic Church, though big and unwieldy at times, though filled with sinners as much as any church, has also been persecuted, since the very first day. We shouldn't appeal to emotion (or dodgy histories) when dealing with fellow Christians.

God bless and keep well

Antonios

04-07-2007, 06:19 PM